Lissadell House to re-open tomorrow

magnumlady

For a limited time:

http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=5076

teddy_303

so the dublin solicitors were forced to open the place, as per the terms in agreeing the relatively cheap price they paid for it. maybe there is some justice in the world after all...

bigpaw-sligo

at least it free

blackiebest

teddy_303 wrote: »

so the dublin solicitors were forced to open the place, as per the terms in agreeing the relatively cheap price they paid for it. maybe there is some justice in the world after all...

Your interpretation of the story is staggering. I have no doubt but that following the court case you will feel there is no justice. Who exactly do you think "forced" the Cassidy family to reopen there home?

Thankfully Sligo's best cultural amenity is available to the tiny amount of tourists we have here this year and here and hopefully post court case the owners of the property will see fit to reactivate the original business plan and keep the property available to all year round. Congratulations to Mr. Perry TD and Clr J. McGarry for going against the grain and for opening reasoned discussions which brought this result.

Essexboy

The Revenue Commissioners deserve the credit for reopening Lissadell House.

"Under section 42 of the Finance Bill such properties can avail of tax relief for expenditure on repair and maintenance work but are required to open to the public for 60 days annually, including 40 days from May to September."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250762919.html

blackiebest

Essexboy wrote: »

The Revenue Commissioners deserve the credit for reopening Lissadell House.

"Under section 42 of the Finance Bill such properties can avail of tax relief for expenditure on repair and maintenance work but are required to open to the public for 60 days annually, including 40 days from May to September."
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0716/1224250762919.html

Possibly, however the suggestion the owners have been forced to re-open is misleading at best. The 'dublin solicitors' reference to them is immature, and while tax relief is an incentive for them to reopen I do not for one second believe they need relief to survive financially. Were the owners as thick and stubborn as many of their neighbours and local councilers Lissadell would still be closed. But hey, this is Sligo! Of course we have to make all good things sour

teddy_303

This being Sligo, is it. How about this for Sligo. Wealthy people, given a hugely discounted price against what was the current market value, in addition to massive subsidy payments at the expense of the taxpayer, grabs all around them, and then try to not honour the terms of the agreement which does not suit.

I'd say that's about as Sligo as you will get. Sounds like they have really settled in.

magnumlady

The council were offered Lissadell, they didn't want it.

teddy_303

The council could not afford it. The resources were not available at the time to purchase or to refurbish the property. That is barely anything to do with the financial incentives gladly received by the wealthy, courtesy of the tax payer, for the wealthy to renege on their commitments in the deal.

teddy_303

In addition to the above, a few years back, Saehan Media allegedly told the
IDA they needed a very expensive , €3.5 million I heard it was, piece of machinery to remain open. The Irish tax payer footed the bill on the understanding it would save to company. The machine in question was purchased and delivered to the site in Hazelwood. The box was opened, the machine checked, then resealed and cargo ed to their Korean plant immediately to be used for the first time and the Sligo factory shutdown discreetly over a short period of time. Its a pity the authorities in Ireland don't share information to use tax money more wisely, and not leave us open to exploitation. If we had instead of giving the Koreans a present of millions, when they were always going to pull out of the country leaving a hundred or so people unemployed, why not buy Lissadell house instead. That way makes more sense to me at least. The people who visit wouldn't have to curtsy the Lady of the manor, and the Koreans would not be laughing at us stupid "grateful for nothing" irish people. I'm not grateful. I don't know why anybody would be. It's typical Irish shortsightedness. Any other civilised country would have sacked, possibly prosecuted the "public servants" responsible for what goes on it Sligo.

dardevle

.the bottom line is nobody in the council had the foresight to see the potential in lissadell house back when it was sold as-lets face it "a going concern"....and certainly nobody that i can recall ever requested jocyln gore booth to open the estate to save the tourist season in Sligo! maybe because up until 6 years ago most people gave the place a wide berth and were not too bothered about rights of way since there was not alot going on with the place.....should the council or the government have stepped in and purchased the estate for the people of Ireland-absolutley!
but they would/did not, and i feel that those who did should be allowed to proceed with there plans to secure the future of the estate.



.

shellyriver

Hi Teddy

You are a new poster here -- you'll will quick ascertain that opinions are very split re the Lissadell 'rights of way' issue.

You do seem a little strident in your points -- and drawing an analogy between Saehen (which you seem to suggest they pulled a fast one over fawning bureaucrats) and the purchase of Lissadell (thereby their being some form of implicit parallel) seems a little unconvincing.

Similarly, what happened with its previous incarnation Snia is instructive -- it was obvious the Government of the day would do whatever necessary to try and inject a form of industrialisation in the North-West. But fair being fair, the farmers of Calry and North Leitrim who worked there but went missing whenever there was turf to be clamped or ewes to be dosed mustn't be forgotten -- so we're not bad at wanting to have our cake and eat it.

Anyways, like the Sligo Post 'advocate' I have a sneaking suspicion you may be masquardeing as new postie, with much of the same opinions that have been expressed earlier. I am sure readers are aware of the pheonomena of multi-identity posters. I could be wrong, but I am harbouring a doubt.

That said the arguments on both sides re Lissadell I'm sure haven't changed greatly since a similar thread was previously locked. And what I want to discover if account that there was a Mummified Cat lying on the records associated with Lissadell, in Sligo Co Council's archive facility, is true or not!

If so -- the said Tabby should be allowed to be displayed in the now reopening Lissadell House.:D

Essexboy

Following a protracted legal battle, the High Court has ruled that public rights of way do exist at the historic Lissadell estate in Sligo.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-rules-public-rights-of-way-exist-on-lissadell-estate-486371.html

mike65

I've not read the background but thats a crazy legal battle to have ended up fighting and losing. Why didn't the current owners seek to establish what rights exist and then test same before they bought it?

BoxingIrel.com

Well I have to say that that is a dissapointment.

It's my opinion that Sligo will lose many times more than a small minority will gain because of this.

Agh! just read the article and is says "only during daylight hours"

A happy medium I think.

Carry on!

John_Rambo

magnumlady wrote: »

The council were offered Lissadell, they didn't want it.

And they don't want anyone else to have it. I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

It's a crying shame.

saywhatyousee

i feel sorry for the couple.if i shelled out that amount of money for a house i would not like strangers wandering around my garden when they please.
government had the chance to buy it the didnt so... they should be allowed do as they please

Buford T Justice

saywhatyousee wrote: »

i feel sorry for the couple.if i shelled out that amount of money for a house i would not like strangers wandering around my garden when they please.
government had the chance to buy it the didnt so... they should be allowed do as they please

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the small people imo.

dardevle

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the smallminded people imo.

fyp

itac

John_Rambo wrote: »

I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

It's a crying shame.

Naive and all as it may sound, I wish there was some way of saying to people if you do injure yourself on these rights of way, you can't claim unless it can proven that it's due to the owners neglect. The Walsh-Cassidy's shouldn't be responsible for two drivers that crash into each other, nor should they be responsible for someone injuring themselves by falling over/wandering off the path etc.

It was going to be a sad outcome either way-personally, I'm glad that I, and my family now and in future, will be able to spend time in Lissadell. I'm glad that locals don't have try and walk the country roads all the way round to the other entrance, dodging speeding cars on narrow bends.

However, I'm sad that the amazing work the Walsh-Cassidy's have done over the last few years may be in vain if they do pull out. I spent a wonderful drizzly morning during the summer taking the tour; the history geek in me loved wandering around the exhibition rooms, and then finished with lunch in the tea-rooms. I'd be disappointed not to have that opportunity again.

Don't really see any winners in this case tbh... : (

promethius

itac wrote: »

Don't really see any winners in this case tbh... : (

The only winners are the cassidy's legal representation.
Almost everyone else loses. The cassidy woman seems arrogant, locals might have been more flexible perhaps, didn't make for a great mix. Sligo will go on with or without the house regardless of their threats to close it to the public. Would of course be missed.

Pete M.

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

:rolleyes:

Essexboy

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Pffft. She's a barrister and she couldn't have looked into the possibility of the Right of Way before she bought the house? As If!

Serves them right, Thinking they could waltz into this town with their money and push everyone around as they saw fit.

A victory for the small people imo.

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

T runner

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

I think thats a quite unfair and horrible generalisation. The law of the land must be upheld. That is not stabbing someone in the back. If you have a legal disagreement with someone it is not necessary to fall out with them.

That said if you should try and uphold what you believe to be right and legal. No favours to friends or locals. If you make exceptions for people because they are rich or are bringing money to the area then that is corrruption.

The owners clearly were aware of an issue with rights of way before buying. They must have known that the promise was made by someone who had previously been a ward of court. They must have had information that the council had been involved in the upkeep of that road and they would have known from teh go that it was been used as a right of way.

For barristers to attempt to pressure the council by publicly stating that all jobs there will be lost if this issue goes against them should raise eyebrows.

Weve had too much of that and similar types of interaction between politicians and rich people in this country. Either it is a right of way legally or it is not. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant: as it should be.

T runner

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

I disagree. The first action in this saga was the owners illegally blocking the right of way. The owners publicly campaigned to the effect that the council had imposed a right of way on their private road out of the blue. They claimed that this agressive act would caost Sligo many jobs. They deliberately were trying to use public opinion to pressure the council to backdown from its obligations to the people in the councils juristiction.

It didnt work, it went to court and the councils position was vindicated.

The court or council were not being small minded. People who think that the rules should be bent for some people in some situations are part of the past of this country and fit more into the small minded category than people who believe everyone should be equal under the Law in this Republic.

Buford T Justice

dardevle wrote: »

fyp

Wow, good work there. :rolleyes:

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

Because thats specific to North Sligo only?

Pete M.

Essexboy wrote: »

Anyone buying land in North Sligo needs to take care - they are dealing with people who smile into your face, then stab you in the back! :mad:

:rolleyes:


Anyone buying land anywhere should be take care.

Essexboy

T runner wrote: »

I think thats a quite unfair and horrible generalisation. The law of the land must be upheld. That is not stabbing someone in the back. If you have a legal disagreement with someone it is not necessary to fall out with them.

That said if you should try and uphold what you believe to be right and legal. No favours to friends or locals. If you make exceptions for people because they are rich or are bringing money to the area then that is corrruption.

The owners clearly were aware of an issue with rights of way before buying. They must have known that the promise was made by someone who had previously been a ward of court. They must have had information that the council had been involved in the upkeep of that road and they would have known from teh go that it was been used as a right of way.

For barristers to attempt to pressure the council by publicly stating that all jobs there will be lost if this issue goes against them should raise eyebrows.

Weve had too much of that and similar types of interaction between politicians and rich people in this country. Either it is a right of way legally or it is not. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant: as it should be.

I am speaking from (bitter) personal experience and, No, I am not defending the Walshs!
A simple example of the North Sligo mindset. An American couple bought some land in Mullaghmore, came over unannounced to find the previous owner had entered the land and and was demolishing an old building so that he could sell the stone. He could not accept that he had done anything wrong.
Theft! Trespass! What were they?

T runner

Essexboy wrote: »

I am speaking from (bitter) personal experience and, No, I am not defending the Walshs!
A simple example of the North Sligo mindset. An American couple bought some land in Mullaghmore, came over unannounced to find the previous owner had entered the land and and was demolishing an old building so that he could sell the stone. He could not accept that he had done anything wrong.
Theft! Trespass! What were they?

Sorry but that is an example of one individual's alleged attitude and not representative of the whole "North Sligo" mindset. As stated previously the Lisadell case was decided by a court of Law. Nothing to do with North Sligo mindsets and thankfully nothing to do with corruption.

If the council had folded to the Walshes public campaign to equate the right oif way issue with the loss of jobs at Lisadell that would be de facto corruption.

You seem to have a beef with people from North Sligo but it has nothing to do with the Lisadell right of way case.

HollyB

John_Rambo wrote: »

And they don't want anyone else to have it. I am not sure if the current owners are going to be accountable for car crashes, injuries etc on the roads.

I hope that's not the case. I think that, in a case like this, where people are visiting private property without the consent of the owners, they should do so entirely at their own risk, and the owners should not be in any way obliged to maintain roads, paths, etc, for the benefit of those availing of public rights of way.

tedshredsonfire

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing. land legalites are a laugh a minute unless you are caught up in one.
there was a fameous case of some kids vrs esb back in the 70s/80s that was a nuts ruling and one of the kids was killed afaik worth a look up but cant recall the name of the family

HollyB

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing. land legalites are a laugh a minute unless you are caught up in one.

How can you possibly be an invitee if you are present against the declared wishes of the owners?

If a public right of way is being asserted, then I think that a member of the public who avails of that right of way should not expect the owner of the land to accommodate them any further, and the owner certainly shouldn't be responsible for any injury or damage, except in a case where the owner oersonally caused the injury/damage, ie. hit them with a car or something. If they find the roads, paths, etc, unsatisfactory, I'm sure that the owners won't hold a gun to their heads and force them to visit.

itac

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

If you are allowed on the land then legally you are an invitee and have certain rights and should be protected. Its why farmers had to put up all those signs you are on a farm etc. If you are a trespasser you don't have the same rights as an invitee and would have a far stronger case for suing.

HollyB wrote: »

How can you possibly be an invitee if you are present against the declared wishes of the owners?

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? At least that's what I got from that post.

Completely agree with you re: injury claim crap! Interesting article in the Irish Times today referring to Lissadell...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html




Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL


OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


The case, which ran for 58 days, centred on a dispute between the owners, Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy, and Sligo County Council over public rights of way through the estate. The couple had purchased the house for €3.5 million in 2003, and invested a further €9.5 million since then restoring and promoting the house.


While Lissadell holds a special place in Irish culture, given its associations with WB Yeats who visited on many occasions, it fell to private owners to put in place a plan for the house to be self-sustaining. “We took on what the State was not prepared to do. We had a vision. That vision is over,” Walsh said after the ruling went against him and his wife, raising doubts over the future of the estate as a tourist attraction.


Lissadell is just one of a number of significant Irish houses that have had a turbulent century, with many of their estates broken up and their financial independence significantly compromised. In 2007, I was involved in a project that meant visiting 30 of Ireland’s great houses, with a particular focus on those remaining in family ownership.


In advance of the project, I expected to be embarking on a tour of aristocratic, well-heeled Ireland. I found some owners still felt an exaggerated sense of historical and material self-entitlement and were unable to break free from the landlord/tenant ideology. A sizeable majority, though, saw themselves less as privileged owners of the “big house on the hill” and more as custodians of sites of cultural and historical significance.


Elderly owners, in particular, worried about how best to unburden the next generation from the financial costs associated with keeping large houses. One woman I met was in the process of removing family portraits from the walls of her crumbling family pile near Dublin. She was hoping to raise enough money from their sale to re-roof and insulate the house and prevent further damage during the winter months.


No longer were there large staffs to run these estates, and in cases where younger generations had left home, the sense of isolation was keenly felt.
One of the possible implications from the fallout of the Lissadell case is that in future the next generation of private owners may be hesitant when purchasing and living in historic houses where public rights of way exist. A balance needs to be struck between ensuring an owner’s right to raise their family in some privacy and locals right to continue to enjoy established rights of way.


Yet what of the houses themselves? In the past decade, there seemed to be some impetus in putting in place a plan to preserve some of Ireland’s most threatened houses. In 2003, a report by Dr Terence Dooley of NUI Maynooth, entitled A Future for Historic Houses , sought to examine 50 such properties. In his findings, Dooley said: “The main body of this report finds the houses, with very few exceptions, are faced with difficulties which threaten their existence in the future unless immediate steps are taken to avert these threats.”


Writing a foreword to the report, then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern sought to reclaim the big house for the present generation. He said: “Once considered not to be part of our patrimony, these magnificent 18th and 19th century houses, built by Irish builders, are now increasingly valued for their architectural significance and for the wealth of superb interior decoration created mainly by Irish craftspeople.”



The report led to the establishment of the Irish Heritage Trust in 2006, which was tasked and funded by government to assist with saving houses in peril. Yet the optimism that the body would be the solution for properties in danger has not quite materialised. While the Irish Heritage Trust has taken over Fota House in Cork, its funding is now limited and its role reduced.


Kevin Baird, chief executive officer of the Irish Heritage Trust, says that the financial climate in 2006 when it launched is very different to today and that has implications for the role of the trust.
“We received a huge amount of financial support from government when we launched. What we have now found is there are projects that have had to be parked and we are waiting for better times to come. Given the game we are in and the current economic climate, it is very devastating. But we are in a 100-year cycle. It is a very long game to deliver sites that will be here forever. I often say we are making a casserole not a fry.”


The Irish Heritage Trust plans further significant investment in Fota House over the coming six months, including refurbishment works led by architect John O’Connell, and better public access.


Some argue though that the Irish Heritage Trust is not robust nor financially independent enough to provide a solution, and houses such as Aldborough House in Dublin, or Vernon Mount in Cork are exactly the type of properties a well-funded Irish Heritage Trust should be saving, but can’t.

In recent months, a new association for private owners of historic houses has been formed, led by Susan Kellett at Enniscoe House. Entitled the Irish Historic Houses Association, the organisation aims to provide a forum in which current owners may discuss issues and share knowledge in relation to the upkeep and refurbishment of their homes.


Kellett believes the best persons charged with preserving this aspect of our built heritage should be the owners themselves, and not an independent body such as the Irish Heritage Trust. She also believes the houses are unable to remain apart from their local community and owners need to realise this.


“In my case, I cannot operate without the support of the local community. The thing is that if you look around Ireland there are probably between 200 and 300 significant properties . . . So, the most economical way
to keep those houses and make use of them is for original families, or ones who have come in, to be able to live in the properties, to continue to run them.


“The Irish Heritage Trust takes the properties into public ownership and loses the families. You end up with something very expensive to run. Families will work themselves to the bone if they are allowed to. I know the Irish Heritage Trust is looking to mimic the English National Trust but we don’t have the money at the moment.”

Kellett has set up a website, ihh.ie, where members can log on and discuss issues. She says there are real security concerns about opening houses to the public, but that the majority of her members are already engaged with the local community and run an ongoing series of events. Many are not publicised or promoted formally and this needs to change.


Returning to Lissadell, she says the house is a particular case, but lessons can be learned about the fallout from the dispute. “I don’t think any owner should handle something like that. You have to interact with the local community if you want to make a change. I don’t understand the thinking that if you are developing a house as a tourist attraction, why you would then object to people coming through?”


The message to many of the remaining landed class and those living in historic houses should be that public funding costs, and the price to be paid is often public access.


“We do have some members who are elderly and are frightened if they open to visitors every day, some of the visitors will just be casing the joint,” she says. “My message though is that it is a two-way street. There is no free lunch, and owners must give something back in return.”

tedshredsonfire

Holly afaik in the case I refered to the kids lived near a substation. ESB came to the house stating kids were entering site etc etc. ESB put up more signs fencing etc but kids still found a way in. Ruling was that by putting up a sign stating danger no entry it was like an invitation to a curious child. therefore esb had invited siad child therefore esb had a higher duty of care as the child was an invitee not a tresspasser. Ludicris yes, baffling yes but whoever said the law was fair?.
I am going off topic norw though but its just to point out that any landowner has a higher duty of care on an invitee as opposed to a tresspasser and I presume the same applies to Lissadell house.

dingding

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

Holly afaik in the case I refered to the kids lived near a substation. ESB came to the house stating kids were entering site etc etc. ESB put up more signs fencing etc but kids still found a way in. Ruling was that by putting up a sign stating danger no entry it was like an invitation to a curious child. therefore esb had invited siad child therefore esb had a higher duty of care as the child was an invitee not a tresspasser. Ludicris yes, baffling yes but whoever said the law was fair?.
I am going off topic norw though but its just to point out that any landowner has a higher duty of care on an invitee as opposed to a tresspasser and I presume the same applies to Lissadell house.

Do you have the details of this case. I would be interested in finding out more.

tedshredsonfire

sorry dingding no other info comes to mind. I read about it during studying a section of law for a hotel course I was doing at the time. Its a pretty fameous case so a good legal head should be able to recall it.

dingding

Just interested as I was working in the ESB in the early 80's and one of the jobs I had was raising the height of the fence in a number of substations.

Must be related to this.

Thanks

EDIT:- Found it:

http://www.cpaireland.ie/UserFiles/File/students/Articles/2006LFmodified.pdf

In McNamara v ESB [1975] I.R. 1, at issue were injuries sustained by a young boy when he
broke into an ESB substation. The substation was surrounded by a fence of wire meshing,
which was being replaced by a wall. The accident occurred at a spot where there was wire
meshing topped with barbed wire. There were easily reachable uninsulated conductors at the
ESB substation and this was the reason for the barbed wire topping on the wire meshing and
for the building of the wall. The ESB also knew at the time that children were entering the
substation. The temporary fence was severely criticised by both an architect and an engineer
hired as experts by the plaintiffs. Again, the Court found the ESB liable on the basis of
proximity and foreseeability. The Court did consider the steps taken by the ESB to prevent
entry into the substation and decided that they were unreasonable in the circumstances. The
Court also considered whether the children themselves could be held liable.
It concluded that they were not, as they did not appreciate that there was a danger and this
danger had not been communicated to them.

HollyB

itac wrote: »

The Irish Times wrote:

A balance needs to be struck between ensuring an owner’s right to raise their family in some privacy and locals right to continue to enjoy established rights of way.

One possible solution is to introduce a law preventing public rights of way being claimed within a certain distance of a private home, say 200 metres or the boundary of the property, whichever is nearer.

Essexboy

T runner wrote: »

Sorry but that is an example of one individual's alleged attitude and not representative of the whole "North Sligo" mindset. As stated previously the Lisadell case was decided by a court of Law. Nothing to do with North Sligo mindsets and thankfully nothing to do with corruption.

If the council had folded to the Walshes public campaign to equate the right oif way issue with the loss of jobs at Lisadell that would be de facto corruption.

You seem to have a beef with people from North Sligo but it has nothing to do with the Lisadell right of way case.

I gave an example, not a list!

"Eddie Walsh and Constance Cassidy, . . . . ., say they received assurances from the local authority and the previous owners, that there is no public right of way through the estate."
Someone is telling porkies here: whoever it is, I find it plausible that the previous owners gave these assurances.

However, I agree with you that the council were right not to give in. As the motto above the Bridewell Garda station says Fiat justitia ruat caelum (May justice be done though the heavens fall).

sligopark

itac wrote: »

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? At least that's what I got from that post.

Completely agree with you re: injury claim crap! Interesting article in the Irish Times today referring to Lissadell...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html


Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL

OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


The case, which ran for 58 days, centred on a dispute between the owners, Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy, and Sligo County Council over public rights of way through the estate. The couple had purchased the house for €3.5 million in 2003, and invested a further €9.5 million since then restoring and promoting the house.

I would have to dispute they spent anything of their own other than time in restoring or promoting the house.

These monies as I understand it are almost if not 100% tax deductable so we the taxpayer paid for the restoration and Edward Walsh and Constance Cassidy's 'vison' that included removing the rights of way of locals and helping them live the dream at our expense.

Also just wondering aloud did this vision includes the barb wire fencing and intrusion upon rights of way that went up within hours of the judgement going against Sligo latest bluffer landlord and in favour of local serfs? Are they ready to take their stuff to their villa in France as they threatened?

The locals now speak of going down past 'Colditz' on their way to the beach.

These bluffers had some neck on them stealing a national treasure from under our noses.

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

These bluffers had some neck on them stealing a national treasure from under our noses.

I think you are getting a bit excited and hot under the collar. What is a "Bluffer" by the way?

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think you are getting a bit excited and hot under the collar. What is a "Bluffer" by the way?

an adjective describing one acting out a bluff ...

bluff 1 (blf)
v. bluffed, bluff·ing, bluffs
v.tr. 1. To mislead or deceive.
2. To impress, deter, or intimidate by a false display of confidence.
3. Games To try to mislead (opponents) in a card game by heavy betting on a poor hand or by little or no betting on a good one.

v.intr. To engage in a false display of strength or confidence.

n. 1. The act or practice of bluffing.
2. One that bluffs.

bluff - deceive an opponent by a bold bet on an inferior hand with the result that the opponent withdraws a winning hand

John_Rambo

The house was up for sale, they bought it. For what it was, a national treasure, it was going for a song. It should have been snapped up by the council, but they refused to buy it. That, might be a good thing, because, by all means, they sound like a pack of gombeen fools and the present owners seem to be more capable.

If you feel you have been deceived, you weren't, you snooze, you loose.

On a serious note, you should have lobbied your council heavily at the time. That's if you were concerned at the time.

sligopark

Up for sale yes - but would the Co Council got the 100% tax rebate involved around the restoration? There in lies the reason for it being on sale for a song....

Nevermind local politicians as a majority being gombeen fools (as you describe them) incapable of anything major in their lives other than freeloading, never mind in proper engagement with modern landlord types...

Then on top none of the locals expected a bluff on rights of way being removed then intruded upon as they are now in retalitation ...

John_Rambo

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, the right of way is back now, so you must be happy, do you use it often?

sligopark

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Anyway, the right of way is back now, so you must be happy, do you use it often?

Its not really more complicated than I have described it past legal speak and the fact that Sligo Co Council gave away the rights of way at culleenamore beach when it suited them against local community wishes

Not often lately - was back last week visiting over the holidays, it is intruded upon by barbed wire and fence so that now many areas are closed off from cars (now intruded to the point of being unable to pass another car without scratching one or both [as intended I presume to discourage passage - (counting usage numbers for the appeal?)]

As to happy - its more about locals having rights and not being trampled on by outside folks planting themselves in and threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

Ah, come on Sligopark, don't turn this in to a "locals" versus "blowins" thing, they didn't threaten anyone with impoverishment.

T runner

itac wrote: »

I think Tedshreds is referring to people who are legally allowed on the land, not trespassers or peoples claiming right of way? .........
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0103/1224286666679.html




Access to historic homes the key to public support
BRIAN O'CONNELL


OPINION: What is to become of Ireland’s big house heritage that is still largely in private hands?

THE RECENT High Court case involving the owners of Lissadell House in Co Sligo raises fundamental questions about the overall future and purpose of our remaining historic houses.


................
While Lissadell holds a special place in Irish culture, given its associations with WB Yeats who visited on many occasions, it fell to private owners to put in place a plan for the house to be self-sustaining. .............”

The author should atleast try and get his facts right. The principle reason for Lisadells significance is that it was the home of Lady Constance Markiewitz nee Gore Booth: revolutionary, Irish republican, first ever female MP, TD who returned a national hero after her incarceration in England following the 1916 rising. The occasional visits of WB Yeats are more incidental.

John_Rambo

sligopark wrote: »

threatening local folk with impoverishment if they don't get their way similar to english landlords of the past...

Were the Gore-Booth's not very good? As far as I can remember they saved lives during the famine. (long time since I did history!) Then, (I DO remember this) their daughter became the famous nationalist?

tedshredsonfire

T runner wrote: »

The author should atleast try and get his facts right. The principle reason for Lisadells significance is that it was the home of Lady Constance Markiewitz nee Gore Booth: revolutionary, Irish republican, first ever female MP, TD who returned a national hero after her incarceration in England following the 1916 rising. The occasional visits of WB Yeats are more incidental.

AFAIK Yeats was really only tolerated there at the time. I bit like the priest in Fr Ted that came and stayed for ages. So said Eva Gore-Booth when I was about 7 but without the Ted reference obviously.

Pete M.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Were the Gore-Booth's not very good? As far as I can remember they saved lives during the famine. (long time since I did history!) Then, (I DO remember this) their daughter became the famous nationalist?

In creating the parklands in the 1840s Robert Gore Booth acquired the 875 acre town land of Ballygilgan, assisting the emigration of 52 families to Quebec: in 1839 he paid each person £2 a head for disturbance, £4 for every acre of good land, and sea passage in the Pomona.


Those who refused to emigrate were offered land elsewhere in Sligo. He also acquired a neighbouring estate, and both purchases were funded by the sale and mortgage of family property in England.
Lissadell itself was not mortgaged for these purchases, and it is doubtful if tradition is correct in saying that the estate was mortgaged for famine relief in the 1840's. Robert did offer some help during the famine: he chaired four famine relief committees and distributed bread and oatmeal.

^^^ Directly from their own website, so no Robert Gore Booth wasn't that great a chap by the looks of it. Probably 'assisted the emigration' of more than he fed.

But anyhoo....

tedshredsonfire wrote: »

AFAIK Yeats was really only tolerated there at the time. I bit like the priest in Fr Ted that came and stayed for ages. So said Eva Gore-Booth when I was about 7 but without the Ted reference obviously.

Yeah, shur he was a raving drug fiend and you know what those privileged arty types are like about the place, nightmare :eek:

One of the only stories I know of his visits to Lissadell involves him rolling around on the lawn in his birthday suit, full of laudanum, 'gaining inspiration', kinda like a rock n' roll sort of a thing.